Apple says VPN changes coming in iOS thanks to VirnetX verdict

The changes will be distributed as part of an iOS update later this month.

Apple has been forced to change how iOS devices use VPN following a $368.2 million patent verdict in favor of patent and research firm VirnetX. The company wrote about the changes in a support document posted to its website on Thursday (hat tip to AppleInsider), saying the behavior of VPN On Demand would be different from expected starting with iOS 6.1, and the changes would come in an update that will be released this April.

"Due to a lawsuit by VirnetX, Apple will be changing the behavior of VPN On Demand for iOS devices using iOS 6.1 and later," Apple wrote. "This change will be distributed in an update later this month."

The changes are relatively minor—devices with VPN On Demand configured to "always" will instead behave as if they're set up to "establish [a connection] if needed." Apple says the device in question will then only establish a new VPN On Demand connection if it's not able to resolve the DNS of the host it wants to reach (these settings can currently be found within Settings > General > VPN).

VirnetX won its patent lawsuit against Apple last November; the suit targeted both VPN and FaceTime behaviors in Apple's iPads, iPhones, and iPod touches. The judgment came out to be a whopping $368.2 million in damages, and when the verdict was upheld again in February of this year, the judge ordered Apple to pay $330,211 per day to VirnetX until royalty payments for the patented tech could be sorted out.

As we wrote in February, the decision was extremely favorable to VirnetX, even though the company didn't get the injunction it originally wanted. Quoting ourselves: "Not only will the company receive millions in damages from Apple, it will also likely win ongoing royalties. This is almost as desirable a situation as if VirnetX had simply won an injunction—if VirnetX wins just one percent of royalties on the sale of iOS devices, it could make a ton of money. In fact, one percent isn't outside the realm of possibility—before Newegg was able to defeat Soverain Software's patents for the online 'shopping cart,' Soverain stood to rake in a one percent royalty payment from Avon and Victoria's Secret online sales thanks to the same federal court in the Eastern District of Texas."

Indeed, the costs could add up, so it appears Apple has decided it's better to make changes to how it handles VPN connections instead. There may be similar under-the-hood changes coming to FaceTime's behavior as well, but those weren't spelled out in Thursday's support document.

What about IP address resolution? What about accessing internal resources when there is a valid public DNS record for that resource?

I know that in an ideal world we would all be using DNS rather than IP addresses, and that internal and external hostnames would be different; we don't live in an ideal world and large businesses frequently encounter both of these issues.

This somehow reminds me of when Wal-Mart had meat cutters threatening to form a union. They then got rid of the meat cutter position and had machines do it at the factory. I guess Apple will be taking the same approach to avoid future payments. This world really is just messed up...

You get the prestigious award for random irrelevant comparison coming out of left field sir.

This somehow reminds me of when Wal-Mart had meat cutters threatening to form a union. They then got rid of the meat cutter position and had machines do it at the factory. I guess Apple will be taking the same approach to avoid future payments. This world really is just messed up...

Yes, it's exactly the same... except that VirnetX is a troll corporation that doesn't actually do any work, and merely sues other companies for supposed patent infringement. As seen here, if they bring enough suits, eventually one of them pays well enough to support the whole venture.Yes, this world really is messed up, for the opposite reason that you think.

This somehow reminds me of when Wal-Mart had meat cutters threatening to form a union. They then got rid of the meat cutter position and had machines do it at the factory. I guess Apple will be taking the same approach to avoid future payments. This world really is just messed up...

Clearly the next step is for Apple to fire their meat cutters and replace them with machines.

I would love to hear Adam Orth's critique of this decision. Actually, I wonder if the sort of secure phone home connection the Xbox will be doing will also run afoul of/is licensed by VirnetX. But the idea is sooooo ridiculous and in my reading back when, not even a tricky thing to conjure up.

I don't think there's much to be opinionated about there, the invalidated patent means others can implement it , and apple can't sue anyone for it , and there are some appeals coming from previous cases where apple did sue based on this patent.

This somehow reminds me of when Wal-Mart had meat cutters threatening to form a union. They then got rid of the meat cutter position and had machines do it at the factory. I guess Apple will be taking the same approach to avoid future payments. This world really is just messed up...

Clearly the next step is for Apple to fire their meat cutters and replace them with machines.

No, no, it's the other way around. We need to replace the machines with miniature people who can't be patented (or are patented first).

I would love to hear Adam Orth's critique of this decision. Actually, I wonder if the sort of secure phone home connection the Xbox will be doing will also run afoul of/is licensed by VirnetX. But the idea is sooooo ridiculous and in my reading back when, not even a tricky thing to conjure up.

That aside - it's complete BS and the Judge should be ousted for making the decision he did - not to mention the brainchildren at the USPTO for vaildating the patent to begin with. Someone filing a batch of patents in 2002± for VPN / DNS connectivity should have been tossed out to start with sicne those protocols have been around for 25+ years prior to that. Just because they were combined and used in some fashion - does not make it patentable.

if VirnetX wins just one percent of royalties on the sale of iOS devices, it could make a ton of money. In fact, one percent isn't outside the realm of possibility

I don't think that is correct.

VirnetX might be able to get 1% of the royalty from VPN features in iOS devices. They wouldn't get 1% of all iOS devices.

You would have to find out how many iOS users actually ever set their VPN to turn on automatically (I use VPN regularly but I don't use that feature, so I wouldn't be included). The percentage would be coming out of those iOS device sales only, and I'm pretty sure less than one in 50,000 iOS users are using this patented technology.

I hate the iOS implementation of VPN. Every time I unlock my phone, I have to manually reestablish the VPN connection. There should be a setting to make it reconnect automatically. Doesn't look like this lawsuit will help fix that.

This somehow reminds me of when Wal-Mart had meat cutters threatening to form a union. They then got rid of the meat cutter position and had machines do it at the factory. I guess Apple will be taking the same approach to avoid future payments. This world really is just messed up...

You get the prestigious award for random irrelevant comparison coming out of left field sir.

I took this comment to mean that WalMart decided to completely avoid having to worry about their issue by simply getting rid of the problem. Then the fear is that in the future, Apple too could decide it isn't worth litigation over a patent and simply drops features from their phones. Someone suing me about VPNs? "Ah hell with it", easier to just get rid of that functionality for the few percent of users.

I happen to agree, if not so for Apple, for all the many companies that are at risk of these ridiculous patent claims. It's much easier to give in and give up for a startup.

I would love to hear Adam Orth's critique of this decision. Actually, I wonder if the sort of secure phone home connection the Xbox will be doing will also run afoul of/is licensed by VirnetX. But the idea is sooooo ridiculous and in my reading back when, not even a tricky thing to conjure up.

That aside - it's complete BS and the Judge should be ousted for making the decision he did - not to mention the brainchildren at the USPTO for vaildating the patent to begin with. Someone filing a batch of patents in 2002± for VPN / DNS connectivity should have been tossed out to start with sicne those protocols have been around for 25+ years prior to that. Just because they were combined and used in some fashion - does not make it patentable.

Yeah, I have to wonder what in this patent could be with hundreds of millions of dollars, but could be corrected by a software update that apparently has minimal impact on visible behavior. That is really a boat load of money. Exactly what does this patent allegedly do, anyway?

Moderation: flagged for trolling.

Virnetx has valid inventions and software products. The inventors of auto/secure DNS/VPN came from SAIC work for Virnetx- this is not trolling. Virnetx has a product in beta (Gabriel) which it will be licensing. They are not a troll. Apple is a troll if you use that definition They do not heisitate to sue others using their patents but cry like iBoys when they get caught violating--as is SO obvious in this case.Do your homework instead of spreading others' mis-info.

Virnetx has valid inventions and software products. The inventors of auto/secure DNS/VPN came from SAIC work for Virnetx- this is not trolling. Virnetx has a product in beta (Gabriel) which it will be licensing. They are not a troll. Apple is a troll if you use that definition They do not heisitate to sue others using their patents but cry like iBoys when they get caught violating--as is SO obvious in this case.Do your homework instead of spreading others' mis-info.

Apparently, you do not understand how "Trolls" or NPE's (Non-Practicing Entities) work.

They buy up groups of patents, sometimes hiring the original patent holders to function as "expert witnesses", and then send massive numbers of cease and desist letters and/or file preemptive lawsuits with the aim to get enough companies to settle to make the process pay, and it usually does.

They make nothing. They invent nothing. They target, primarily rich targets that would provide a big payday and (increasingly) start-up companies without the resources to take them to court (which typically costs $2.5m plus if the case goes to trial).